Smile, you're on a police camera
Photo
Janesville police officer Steen Carpenter displays his vidmic, which can shoot still photos and video. Janesville officers are wearing the new devices, which help when they are making arrests or traffic stops.
JANESVILLE — Janesville police officers are wearing miniature video cameras on their uniforms to record their encounters with residents, even if they don't know it.
It's legal in Wisconsin, where only one person has to consent to recording a conversation.
And police officials believe it's a tremendous tool when making arrests or traffic stops.
"A lot of officers are telling me that they don't want to be without it," officer Steven Carpenter said. "It's kind of that undisputed witness."
The camera is called a vidmic. It blends into the microphone of the officer's two-way radio. Officers clip it on their uniform.
The gadget can record video, audio and take digital still pictures.
A tool for officers
Officers can use video recordings as evidence. They also can review the video when they write their reports. They no longer have to rely on their memories.
"We can submit those videos to the prosecutor with our reports, and that will give the prosecutor a first-hand look at exactly what was going on," Capt. Danny Davis said.
New officers can review their videos as a training tool. The device could even be stuck around a corner of a room to see whether an armed subject is lurking.
Officials can review videos when a resident complains about an officer. The camera provides undisputed proof of what happened.
"The only people that truly know what happened is the officer and the motorist," Davis said. "It takes away that element of he said/she said."
And the camera can be a deterrent.
One officer recently was dealing with a loud, unruly and profane woman during a call, Carpenter said. The woman settled down after learning the incident was being recorded.
"It de-escalated the situation in a second," Carpenter said. "She felt pretty silly. She was apologetic."
Privacy concerns
Police officials know the cameras might draw criticism and seem like "big brother" is invading the public's rights, Davis said.
The cameras are slightly hidden, and officers aren't obligated to tell people if they're on.
"I can see that maybe there will be a public reaction to this, but once they're out there and people see that is the way we do our business, it will take care of itself," Davis said.
Daniel Blinka, a Marquette University criminal law professor, said the cameras are legal.
"In terms of privacy concerns, there are really none," Blinka said. "Anytime we deal with a police officer, we have no reasonable expectation of privacy."
And the cameras protect the public and police officers.
"What this recording will do is make it easier, not just for the police, but also for the citizen, to prove what exactly happened during the encounter," Blinka said. "It will be interesting to see what effect it will have on the officers' behavior, and I suspect it will be good."
More cameras on horizon
Carpenter suggested the police department purchase the vidmics. He has a technology background and thought they might be helpful.
The police department bought eight cameras for $700 each. Grant money paid for the technology.
"I haven't been without it since probably June," Carpenter said. "Any citizen contact that I have, wherever I'm at, it's with me."
The cameras are the police department's first venture into video. Officers have never had dashboard cameras like other agencies.
Dashboard cameras are only effective on traffic stops, Davis said, and 90 percent of what officers do is away from their patrol cars.
Vidmics go everywhere with the officer. And they will be on from the beginning of an incident to the end, with no break in video, he said. Footage will be saved for a certain period of time to preserve records.
More cameras will likely be purchased in the future, Davis said. The goal is to have enough cameras to cover every officer on shift.
"It just provides all kinds of options," he said. "It's just one more tool we'll put in our toolbox to give the officers what they need."
Mar 16, 2009 at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with the fact for having cameras.. On your uniform as an officer.. But yess, as someone else said they could also be "EDITED" mhm.. yess they say that one of the questions asked to the officer is was at ANY POINT IN TIME this video edited.. And at any point in time they could say "no" when in fact it had been.. So how.. Are we to know when there telling the truth ?
yess there "POLICE OFFICERS" but everyone makes mistakes ??
Right?
Mar 10, 2009 at 8:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jja wrote: camera's in the workplace this would up productivity .
Unless that workplace happens to be the Darien Village Hall. Then, um, not so much.
Mar 10, 2009 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Regarding the concern about video being edited to make the officer look better or something, there is already a "check and balance" for that issue.
Any time a video is used in a court proceeding, the officer who shot the video is questioned. One of the questions asked is, "Does this video accurately portray the events as they happened?" The officer will have to testify whether the video was altered in any way. Yes, I fully realize it is "possible" for the officer to lie and say the video was untouched when in fact it had been edited. I can tell you from experience that this happens in less than one tenth of one percent of cases.
When law enforcement agencies began switching from tape video (VHS or something along those lines) to digital video (DVD), this was a major concern. It is very, very hard to edit VHS without certain tell tale indicators. Sure, it can be done but it is difficult. Digital media is vastly easier to manipulate. However, because of that "check and balance," it doesn't happen very often without being admitted to in open court. Most often, if the video was edited, it was done so to cut down the total video time or cut out extraneous material. And every time it is edited, it is documented.
Also, while it is easier to manipulate digital video, an expert can usually tell.
Mar 9, 2009 at 10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
camera's in the workplace this would up productivity .
Mar 9, 2009 at 6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just use the constitution as it was written and apply it. The cameras are a great Idea as I have had a few experiences that were not pleasant and IMO not all police officers are cut out to be one. Just because you have a degree in it dont make you a good cop and some are excellent at the job. The benifit here for both sides is that there is proof to both parties actions and if an officer has an issue with his behaviors he can see it for himself and correct it. And the person being arrested can look at his/her part and deal with the conseqences. Just a little thought here when someone is intoxicated they sometimes don't remember their behavior and this could be a wake up call for them to view it in court and see how they acted. JMO
Mar 9, 2009 at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I AGREE 100% TOASTY... Except they do have rules stated right above where you post so if someone breaks those rules, then they should be deleted. It's just a local blog... half the time the comments they delete are not worth the time to read them anyways. And I admit, I have had a couple comments deleted, that after I read them... realized they should have been.
Mar 9, 2009 at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow the Socialist fist of the Janesville Gazzette is just throwing the First Amendment out the window with their censorship hammer. The irony is that newspapers cry freedom of the press every chance they get when being denied information. I should know, I was a journalist. If the Gazzette is going to allow the public to voice an opinion, we the people should be allowed to see it.
Mar 9, 2009 at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Could the citizens of Darien form a Police & Fire commission ? is their a cost to this and would it do any good .
Mar 9, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
It doesn't matter what the intended purpose of the camera is if down the road (which it will) the intent is compromised for the almighty dollar. Every problem we face in this country, our communities etc. boils down to a monetary issue. Everytime people start compromising principles over money, it's never going to be a good outcome. The only people it favors is the good of the few over the good of the many. It's called corporate America! It's the reason why our economy is flatlined! These greedy companies have robbed from the consumer for too long and it's finally catching up with them. Unfortunately, it's the consumer who is paying dearly as well. But, in the same fashion, we, the consumer are getting what we deserve. It's time to get educated!
Mar 9, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
PROFFESOR,
I see the difference I just don't see how it applies to this discussion. There was no indication in the article that these vidmic's would be used anywhere but on the officers person while on duty. As for corrupting of the video I'm not sure about DVD but I know on VHS tape you can tell if it has been edited at all. If the vidmic becomes common practice and becomes a tool of defense in court than I would assume a tape that has been tampered with would automatically be thrown out as evidence. At least I would hope it would.
Mar 9, 2009 at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave your screen name tells me you should be watched 24/7 .
is that a big 10/4
Mar 9, 2009 at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
lil_attitude27: please see my comment from 8:17am. For those of you that STILL don't get it, here's a better example. Let ME come search YOUR house, any day, any time, as often as I like. If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear! Get it??
davvic said "SuperDave, I don't quite get your point. In talking about potential abuse of the camera you site the Rodney King case as an example. And yet you go on to say that after watching the ENTIRE video it becomes evident that the police were within their rights...".
The King incident was a good example because 1) the public was repeatedly shown severely editted footage. What if the person that took the original video did the editting? 2) the court was shown the entire video. What if the officer's attorneys decided for whatever reason that they should not testify?
Getting to the truth required a lot of thoughtful consideration of the entirety of the evidence and the testimony.
So the King incident is a good example of what almost happened, or what could have happened. I can't give you an example to the contrary, since we don't know the truth in that case. But I'm sure that there have been cases where the only available footage is damning to the wrong party, and the jury just can't get over what the video appears to "prove". After all, the popular cliche is that "the camera never lies".
Mar 9, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
if you do not do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about...good for you jpd, hopefully more countys will get them also!
Mar 9, 2009 at 1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
davvic--taking one's picture/video, and using it for PROFIT (i.e. COPS) is a completely different issue than using video for security or investigations. **** On the 'consent' issue discussed earlier, here's an example of how it works: Green Giant and Charlie Tuna meet for coffee in Darien to discuss the hostile takover of General Foods. Charlie, knowing that Green Giant is the leader in this plan, decides to secretly record their conversation. Under Wisconsin law, Charlie--as one of the two people in that conversation--consented to having the conversation recorded. WI law says you only need ONE party to consent, and the person doing the recording can act as that one party. The next day, though, Charlie learns that Green Giant, Betty Crocker and Mrs. Smith are all going to meet in Darien to finalize the plan. Charlie decides to hide a tape recorder in the plant where the three others are going to meet, because he wants to later listen to what they plan on doing. Since neither G.G., B.C. or Mrs. S. consented to the recording, it would be illegal in WI. Note that it doesn't matter whether the plant where the tape recorder was hidden is in a public place or private place. (Now, if, by chance, the meeting was held in a public place, and Charlie (in a place where he had a right to be) overheard the discussion and plan, that WOULD be legal). See the difference?
Mar 9, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
It goes both ways really. Police officers can not make up details and criminals are gonna have video evidence against them in court. Sounds like a plan to me..
Mar 9, 2009 at noon
Suggest removal
And this week on " Dumbest Criminals Caught On Video.."
Mar 9, 2009 at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think it's a great idea. When I become a teacher, I plan on using a laptop with a camera on it to record any one on one interactions with students to cover my butt in case somebody tries to accuse me of something I didn't do. Does anybody think that would be violating my students rights if they were informed ahead of time that it was happening?
Mar 9, 2009 at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
davvic..I understand that. My point is, principles seem to go by the wayside when the almighty dollar comes into play! Ever notice on COPS how they blot out the faces that don't approve of being seen? Trust me, when it comes to money, most people will sell out. From the federal level, to the state level right down to the city and municipal level. That's the way America works in this culture.
Mar 9, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mathew516, Any footage contained in those cameras cannot be used in the entertainment field without the express consent of the parties involved. Period. Any use would constitute one heck of a lawsuit and there's enough idiots out there looking for their 15 minutes of fame to provide enough footage to keep production companies from resorting to illegal practices.
Mar 9, 2009 at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
I for one think its great! Especially given the fact that most criminals scream INNOCENT and clog the court system with endless, invalid arguments.. I dont see how some find this so offensive, don`t get in trouble and you wont be on tape!
Mar 9, 2009 at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
This police camera issue is a prelude to another corporate driven media source! I don't disagree that police cameras can be beneficial, if used within the context of it's purpose. Anyone who thinks that the footage and drama that get's captured on film won't eventually wind up in the media's hands is BLIND! It'll all be innocent until some greedy, reality TV producer offers out the big bucks for the rights to that material. Funny how something that's supposed to be for the good and protection of the people winds up becoming a tool against those very people it was supposed to be protecting. Reality TV was an ingenius idea by the media people in order to revive the stagnant TV viewing audience some years back. Without the audience, those ads the companies run are useless. You and I are nothing but puppets to the media if we allow ourselves to be. The couch potatoes don't want to hear this, but it doesn't make it untrue!
Mar 9, 2009 at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave, I don't quite get your point. In talking about potential abuse of the camera you site the Rodney King case as an example. And yet you go on to say that after watching the ENTIRE video it becomes evident that the police were within their rights(and I agree)to use the force they did. Ultimately, they were vindicated of any wrongdoing as a direct result of the video. So where's the downside to the vidmic?
Mar 9, 2009 at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
I myself, having a clear conscience, think the vidmics are a great idea. The pros certainly outweigh the cons. Period. The rebuttal here appears to come from paranoid or dishonest citizens. Put yourself in the shoes of the JPD. Would wearing the vidmic change the way you perform your duties as an officer of the law? Let's hope so- and let's hope not. If you cut corners or don't go by the book, then it can be an incentive to rectify your work performance. If you are a straight shooter, then it can support your actions.
Mar 9, 2009 at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
localboysince1968 said "If you are behaving yourself, you have no reason to fear the camera. Tape me all you want".
I AGREE with the second part - TAPE LOCALBOYSINCE1968 24x7 (although he is apparently perfect).
coach said "If you're opposed to them, don't do anything wrong and you won't be picked up by the cops".
Both of you miss the point of whether it's okay to be monitored in this fashion. Overall I agree with using the cameras, but if you don't see the potential for abuse you are both incredibly naive.
tallman said "Look at the Rodney King beating by police. It was so obvious as to their abuse".
Really? That's what I thought too after seeing the same edited footage over and over again. But if you would have listened to the officers' testimony, watched the ENTIRE video, got over your own racist presumptions, and with a clear head weighed all of the evidence, you would have to come to the conclusion that the officers behaved reasonably. I know that popular opinion doesn't agree with that, but I don't subscribe to popular opinion. Go ahead and disagree, I don't want to rehash the entire thing, it's old news. But the point is that video evidence can be very misleading. As another person pointed out, sometimes it's what was not taped (or not shown) that's the most important part of the story.
Mar 9, 2009 at 8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Perhaps some of you should reread the article. It clearly states "Vidmics go everywhere with the officer. And they will be on from the beginning of an incident to the end, with no break in video, he said. Footage will be saved for a certain period of time to preserve records." Personally I would much prefer any interaction I have with police be recorded. And I'm sure any honest officer would feel the same. In any profession you are going to have dishonest people. Yes police officers, teachers, ministers, etc. should be held to a higher standard but you're still going to get the occasional slime ball. That's just life. But for my money I think the vidmic will do a lot more good than harm.
Mar 9, 2009 at 8:08 a.m.
Mar 9, 2009 at 2:14 a.m.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
biggirl...are you aware that the city and the school district are two separate entities?
Didn't think so.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Glad to see that they have money to waste on useless gadgets even as we have to lay off teachers.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
How many of you people are aware that on channel 98 on thursday at 3pm you can watch municipal court live in Beloit .you must have charter
Mar 8, 2009 at 7:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
coach... I think JohnDoe's post has your picture on it....
Mar 8, 2009 at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
coach~ Which high court are you in the judge's seat in? You have no clue what I do and if you only knew, you couldn't handle it. I deal in truth. I don't deal in fantasyland like you seem to. Is that how it is, everyone who doesn't see things from your angle is a dope? Is that what you base truth on? Your view? God help us.
Mar 8, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big brother watching out for their rights not yours. JP dept. might have camera on and then they might not. They will use them only for their advantage not for yours. We used to live in a nation of freedom but that is slowly going away.
Mar 8, 2009 at 7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
There are many posters here that should do themselves a favor and look up the word "naive."
Mar 8, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
AMEN
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Look at the Rodney King beating by police. It was so obvious as to their abuse, yet the courts supported the police with no charges. Then the courts got the chance in the civil suit and found something totally different. There is a sense of protection in charging officers such as those in the Rodney King episode. They should not protect those at fault like those officers because it causes public distrust for even the good officers.
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I understand it .It reminds me of Hitler!
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Joe, Joe, Joe
You won't BE under surveillance if you aren't naughty and picked up by JPD. And if you are viewed by the camera as a complaintant, why would you care? what is it about this scenario that you don't understand?
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
My disrespect is for those sworn to uphold the law but instead break it! It makes no difference to me if you work for K-Mart or anyone else. LAW ABIDING PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE UNDER SERVAILANCE.
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
I would have to agree that there is the potential for bad people everywhere and that would have to include the JPD. This is the essential problem.
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Coach,If only it was that simple.
Mar 8, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think that this will benefit not only JPD, but the wrongfully accused as well in the long run... why was this not brought into perspective 5-10 yrs. ago??
Mar 8, 2009 at 4:58 p.m.
Mar 8, 2009 at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's annoying, and a bit embarasing granted, but I really dont feel like anyone should be getting upset about this... its not like anyone really held the JPD in high reguards anyways. If you have a problem, or you want something to get done, call Rock County, bit full of themselves, but more than capable. In due time we'll just let the JPD continue on with there little productions and what have you. ha ha
Mar 8, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.
Mar 8, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
My Info is out there! It is in the Gazette, The Capitol Timse On 60 Minutes &NPR,as well as Air America. You dont have to go far to find IT.Lets just hope IT never finds us.
Mar 8, 2009 at 4:13 p.m.
Mar 8, 2009 at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
They're a good idea. They protect everyone, including the accused. If you're opposed to them, don't do anything wrong and you won't be picked up by the cops.
Mar 8, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
They may as well take down the partitions in the men's and women's bathrooms all over the U.S. as well. I'm thinking it would be cheaper to have one camera for the entire bathroom than installing camera's in each "crapper". Central control just keeps creeping up on us and we just sit and complain, yet do nothing about it. Nice.
Our forefathers have got to be spinning at 1000 rpm in their graves!
Mar 8, 2009 at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Localboy' you think they can't edit TV shows lol. Is wrestling real too?
Mar 8, 2009 at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Interesting, they want to tape to protect themselves, yet if you try to pull out a camara and make your own documentation of an interaction with an officer they get bent out of shape and say you can't record them. Research on the web and you will find multiple videos of officers getting irate over being filmed by citizens and I have even experienced and officer forcing me to destroy a tape made of him interacting with a group of fellow motorcyclists.
Mar 8, 2009 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good ? garyprimer. To add It will also show when the perp is in the wrong also I just have had past experience where Some of what I witnessed was uncalled for and how the people were treated was not right. I was just stating IMO it will be an asset to all involved if it is on.
Mar 8, 2009 at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
first of all the one is throwing all these accusations around about dirty cops,in janesville you better make damn sure your info is correct, and believe you me iam no fan of jpd. there are maybe four police officers i even have respect for but thats my right. as far as the sherriffs department goes, there has never been one of them who were rude or disrespectful to when i had so much trouble with my daughter years ago, they were nothing but kind respectful and helpful. as far as the cameras go who cares, let them tape what they want, it may help you one day. my only concern with it, is that one of thier techs may edit actually what happened or what was said. so, seeing how you know so much about the dirty cops put all your facts out and let us on in all your great info.
Mar 8, 2009 at 2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rex Im not saying all cops are dirty,just the most of them.All to different amounts of course.Some choose to violate our civil rights on a daily basis.(just a few). Some choose to file false reports (just a few).Some choose to steal (just a few). Some choose to murder (just a few). But the fact is most choose to keep quiet when they see the lies,theft and murder.When and only when these few can speak up without fear will this problem be solved.
Mar 8, 2009 at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is pretty nice up here. Get your life together, and you can join me. It is a wide area....
Mar 8, 2009 at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
phlurky, if your story is true, then you will get lucky when the computer and camera is not working when you get caught doing what ever you do that requires contact with the police. If will probably benefit you the most.....
Mar 8, 2009 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
All you have to do is watch an episode of Cops to watch how people will try to lie there way out of being caught, even when it is on camera. You can watch Speeders, Cops, L.A. Beat or heck even TruTV to watch what people are really like.
Mar 8, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good grief. After reading about 80% of the comments by some of you clowns out there, if I was a cop in Janesville I'd turn in my badge and my vidmic and give you folks some colorful suggestions on where you could shove them. Oh, and for those of you who want the whine about all the "big brother" invasion of privacy crap, well, you can blame all the folks out there who file false complaints with their hands held out waiting for a payoff. Of course, you're probably one and the same, so I can understand why you wouldn't want any proof that your stories of abuse and brutality amount to a pile of b.s. I think it's pretty sad that we have to wire up officers because more people believe some dope who's up to no good rather than than a cop, but these are the times we live in, everyone has a built in excuse, everyone is a victim so let's all put on our tin foil hats.
I'll tell you one thing though, I hope that the first time and every time JPD catches someone filing a false citizen complaint against an officer they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'll lay some money that there will be more instances of cameras catching that than the officer's misbehaving.
Mar 8, 2009 at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil--I agree; consent waives the privacy interest. And there are dozens of other situations that would allow it, as well. My biggest beef is the over-broad statement that ANY time you deal with a cop, you have no privacy interest. We aren't there yet. Close. But not yet.
Mar 8, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
nizzles i agree with you on that one. Localboy it must be boring in you perfect world. I am not perfect and some people make stupid mistakes in their lives that does not make them any less then you. And not all people are actually causing problems that get arrested as there are cases dismissed as to NOT guilty. stand up for what you believe in against an officer and you will be charged with something. In janesville the term freedom of speech or illegal search is not found in their laws. IMO nor is plain view etc etc. Whether or not a person has something to hide the constution needs to be enforced. Probable cause is their motto in our fine town. IMO
Mar 8, 2009 at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
A great thing so the court will have a view on both sides and police reports as officers write them will have to be in line with camera eye view If they turn them on I agree that it should be done remotely. IMO this will make it so the police reports will be more acurate then one sided as prior to this device. Again my concern is the ability to turn off and on at their hands. joeghiams that would have been nice as several officers were involved it also went on in Edgerton when i was younger. some jpd and epd officers were involved together if Im not mistaken.
Mar 8, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Professor:
""You DON'T have a reasonable right to privacy in public, but you DO in your home; ""
True but little of it applies to the circumstances at hand. If an officer is in your home because you or a family member invited him in, he/she is there lawfully, as such his/her conversation with you is not privacy protected. Bottom line this type of taping is legal if the officer is legally at the place the conversation occurred.
Mar 8, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.
Mar 8, 2009 at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big Brother(like Santa)is coming to town!!! You can bet that poor officer performance won't be videoed as there will be the "Blank Tape" version like with Nixon when the "Open Record" request is presented, just watch. I hope people who experience this reports it on line for all to see. I also hope that the JPD will be honest with it's use and reporting the true outcomes. Only time will tell, becareful what you wish for on both sides.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
With taping, such as this, it's usually what's not taped that's more important than what is. Actions that occur out of range or before the camera is started become pivotal. "I did what I did because of what happened while the microphone (camera) was turned in the other direction" etc. Many times they raise more questions than they answer. Generally, not a good idea, except for some specific prearranged situations.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who has access to these video files? If they are recorded on public property by public servants are they public information?
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Furthermore, there are those victims of crime, such as rape, who SHOULD absolutely have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when interacting with the police.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
If THESE HAD BEEN AROUND YEARS AGO WE COULD HAVE HAD FILM OF THE BOYS IN BLUE CARRING TVs OUT THE BACK DOOR OF ADAMS FURNATURE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Let's just see if the JPD fills out a requisition form for a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS3.
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
What time will tell is, if the officers happen to "remember" to turn the camera on, or store the incident when the officer is in the wrong and abusing their power...
Mar 8, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
And just how possible would it be to edit these images to make a case? The potential for abuse with this technology should be addressed.
Mar 8, 2009 at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Great news for everyone who has ever been ticketed or arrested by an officer who lies
Mar 8, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
I just hope the officers remember to turn them off when they go to the potty. LOL
Mar 8, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you are behaving yourself, you have no reason to fear the camera. Tape me all you want...
Mar 8, 2009 at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
JoeF--No law DIRECTLY prohibits that. That's not to say some cop wouldn't try threatening an arrest for "Obstructing" if s/he KNEW you were doing that (which would be a completely bogus charge). But, short of that possibility, I know of nothing that would prevent a person from doing it.
Mar 8, 2009 at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hello officer! <wink wink>
Eye-socket camera films from inside the head
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-1019...
Mar 8, 2009 at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thank you Professor; you took the words right out of my mouth.
So, serious question: if only one party in Wisconsin has to know that something is being recorded, it's okay if I record the police without informing them?
Mar 8, 2009 at 7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
I wish the Marquette guy had said it a little better than the way he did: You DON'T have a reasonable right to privacy in public, but you DO in your home; and, unless and until the police develop at least "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is afoot, you absolutely DO retain a reasonable privacy interest there. I know it sounds like nit picking, but I don't think people should assume that ANY time a cop shows up, they lose their privacy interests.****JCOMMENTS-What's scary is, there was a time that I would have said your concerns were ridiculous; not so much anymore. Did you know that the FBI can already do that with modern cell phones--you know, that trick of turning them "on", like a bug, and listening to what's being said--without you knowing it's on? Of course, they promised congress they would only do it for legitimate reasons when they asked for (and got) the authority to do that, so I guess we're safe....uh huh....
Mar 8, 2009 at 7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think these vidmics are are cool. They'll be a great tool for the officers and for accuracy in documentation of incidents. People complaining about invasion of privacy probably have something to hide. The anti-cop attitude around here stinks.
Mar 8, 2009 at 3:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
All Police Officers ,or little boy blue or bacon eaters. what ever you want to call them should be monitored.
great idea .
Mar 8, 2009 at 1:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
These will be an effective control tool for the chief of police as well. They can LoJack the squad car to track that, and now they can radio the officer and tell him/her to give them an immediate 360 view... or else. In fact, if they buy the right hardware, they may be able to turn the camera on remotely, without the officer knowing about it.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.